Larry McVoy said ...
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +0000, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
> > What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
> > compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error
> > in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the
> > big deal?
>
> [Fix your mail program to put in carriage returns at 72 columns, please]
(kettle calling pot black) Look at your own signature line, Larry :-)
> I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for
> my purposes, at least, the resulting code is not any faster on
> any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha.
So your sole basis for disliking 2.95 is that the *compiler* is slower??
Not the code it generates, not the error messages it spits out or the
strictness (or lack there of) of type inforcement?? Just the speed??
Hmm... well, I guess everyone's gotta have something to hate...
All right, then just what *is* a good version to use? No, better yet,
what is a good version to use when porting to a new processor (actually
an old processor)? I've pulled the source to gcc (2.95.2) and binutils
(2.10) in prep for a port to a new/old machine. If these versions aren't
good to start from, what versions are and where can I find them?
> ---
> Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
-- Peter A. Castro <doctor@fruitbat.org> or <Peter.Castro@oracle.com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 07 2000 - 21:00:13 EST